[App_rpt-users] App_rpt-users Digest, Vol 60, Issue 7

[Steve Wright]

>
>
> The first way to setup the unlinked configuration is to use four
> RTCMs. These would then link back to two separate nodes. This would
> allow the ability to link the two repeaters when needed/wanted. Of
> course this is what you don't want because of excess RTCMs.
>

Yes, exactly.



>
> The "new" way that Mike (W5JR) [...] Cactus Intertie [..] uses this
> configuration. [...] in-band repeaters [where] the receiver audio is linked
> to the rest of the [same band voting] system and not repeated through the
> local [non band] transmitter [that is part of an identical and linkable
> node].
>
> [...] two nodes would need to be created. One node for the Site "A" RTCM
> and the second for
> the Site "B" RTCM. Then link these through Asterisk. When the A
> receiver picks up a signal the audio would be sent back and sent to
> the B transmitter. Similarly any signal picked up by the B receiver
> would be sent to the A transmitter. Both appearing independent of each
> other.
>

Yes indeedy!

Setting duplex=1 will not repeat the audio from receiver to [the same site]
> transmitter, but uses half duplex operation for simplex nodes.


Thanks Brett, that's perfect!

If we do this, will our split-site (but same-band) repeater still have
talk-through?

Also can I arbitrarily add other TX and RX sites to this "repeater" "node"?


I add the "", because with split-site operation the definition of "node" is
not particularly clear with respect to the site.

So in summary, we are looking at multiple-site voted systems due to not
having good access to one high site, and the few (expensive) high sites
leave some pretty big holes anyway.  We are looking at using the
split-tx/rx approach as above to avoid the expensive and complicated
duplexing.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.keekles.org/pipermail/app_rpt-users/attachments/20140203/78b5ed0a/attachment.html>